Re: RFC: Starting a stable kernel series off the 2.6 kernel

Rob Landley
2005-12-06T03:25:07Z

On Monday 05 December 2005 18:54, Steven Rostedt wrote:

> > Hint: Any plan in a volunteer community that starts with "$BUSY_PEOPLE
> > should do $THIS" fails. Any plan that starts with "I could do $THIS" at
> > least has a chance.
>
> Actually, they are already maintaining 2.6.x.y, (x => 11, 12, ...) I was
> trying to get them to only maintain 2.6.x.y (x => 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 25,
> ...)

That's still "trying to get them" rather than "I could"...

> So maybe it would actually be easier. But I'm sure they wouldn't be
> fooled, since the longer you maintain a fork, the harder it becomes.

And the number exponentially increases (2.6.x+1.y, 2.6.x+2.y, all at the same
time...)

No, I pestered them a while back about possibly doing a 2.6.x.y+1 to flush
their patch queue before doing a 2.6.x+1.1, and they seem more receptive to
the idea now. But then backporting 2.6.x+1.y to 2.6.x becomes your job...

Rob
--
Steve Ballmer: Innovation! Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word.
I do not think it means what you think it means.